Instead, when a bank has millions of pounds pinched it is being done by computer geeks. They are largely anonymous.

Often they get nowhere near an actual branch — instead hijacking your cash from afar via a computer programme.

Alternatively, your account can be raided by any number of fake firms which acquire personal details over the internet, or through an advert.

Fraud such as this costs banks £2 billion a year. In 2011 there were just 48 armed bank robberies.

It is only by sharing details of the types of scam being operated that the banks will be able to fight these criminals.

But in the battle to cut their losses, their own customers are being branded crooks.

It’s one thing, as Money Mail revealed last month, for banks to tighten up the rules over the steps they expect account-holders to take when protecting their personal details.

Customers may find the restrictions cumbersome and impractical — but at least they are transparent.

It’s another thing altogether to shut an innocent person out of their account and effectively leave them in the financial wilderness. They then have to fight to clear their name, often having to deal with disdain from branch staff.

The fraud rules are a mess. From the evidence of the letters and emails we receive, banks are playing fast and loose with their interpretation of them.

This does seem pretty odd, but it was a problem of the bank’s own making since it was done on the recommendation of a bank adviser — who presumably would have got bonus points for every account opened.

Banks seem to be routinely flouting the rules and relying on legal jargon to cover up their own mistakes. In some of the cases we have seen it is only when we have got involved that a proper investigation has been launched — even though the customer has already been assured their case has been treated fairly.

The banks have created a system where they are judge and jury. But in their court you never get to hear the evidence against you, or get a chance to explain what happened.

Instead you are damned as a outcast — with no bank or building society willing to touch you with a bargepole.

Stop tinkering, Mr Osborne

Tinkering: Chancellor George Osborne must get to grips with what he wants to do with higher-rate income tax relief on pension contributions

I dream of the day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer finally stops fiddling with pensions and savings.

It’s not that the changes are not morally justifiable, it’s the message it sends out. This Government, more than any before, wants people to stop relying on the State. That was part of the reason why it changed the rules on income drawdown pensions in the first place.

And it’s why it is going to enrol everyone automatically into a company pension.

But how can anyone plan for their retirement when there is incessant tinkering?

With no clear strategy on several key policies, the incentive to save has been fundamentally undermined.

So, for starters, by the time of the next Budget in March the Chancellor needs to get to grips urgently with what he wants to do with higher-rate income tax relief on pension contributions.

This is a valuable tax break for everyone, but for middle-class savers it is a vital way of preparing for retirement.

Other political parties think the perk is unfair and should be cut. It’s already hard enough to encourage people to save for their retirement and this constant speculation does not help.

The Chancellor must also stop paying lip service to Isa savers. He may think raising the allowance by 2.1 per cent is generous, but it is worth a pathetic £1.05 a year in extra interest.

When we launched our Get Britain Saving campaign three months ago, we called for one Isa allowance for cash and shares. Savers should be allowed to move money between the two as and when they like.

And a final valuable incentive would be to allow parents to transfer child trust funds in to Junior Isas.

That really would send a message to future generations that there will be some reward for prudence and common sense.

The pocket money child trap

Starting early: Piggy banks will be part of James Coney's strategy to teach his eldest son the value of money (picture posed by model)

I’ll admit this is parenting theory — and, of course, that means it’s all liable to change at any moment.

My eldest son is only two-and-a-half. The poor lad doesn’t know it yet, but I’ve already got some ideas about how I’m going to teach him the value of money.

Piggy banks, strict pocket money limits, and savings accounts are all part of the strategy.

What I can guarantee, though, is that I won’t, at any point, get him a pre-paid card with sky-high fees when he is eight years old.

That is precisely what a company called PKTMNY (yes, I know, it’s a ludicrous name) thinks we should be doing.

It has launched a Visa card which costs £1 a month, has a £5 one-off charge, and even costs money to top up. Now there is a valuable financial lesson: you’re never too old to be taken for a ride.

Parents can put restrictions on the card to stop children spending on anything they shouldn’t.

But really, the only ban that is needed is on companies who try to profit by marketing cards like this.